I wish someone would convince RFK that prescription drug ads are bad for his brand of quack medicine. We could at least get rid of that societal cancer while the rest is torn down.
It was a very strange experience once when I was in the US, at a hotel reception, suddenly hearing an advert for a sildenafil drug on TV behind the receptionist.
There's loads of precedent pointing to commercial speech such as marketing as having some specific carve outs on the right to free speech. After all we have limits on tobacco marketing and food labeling requirements.
The politicians are getting funded/paid (lobbying/donations) by the very same people/companies that pay the ad revenue to those media. Why on earth would politicians legislate against their actual bosses? (As a real life reminder - a dog that bites the hand that feed him is put down). Courts btw don't make up shit.. they 'judge' (verb) with the criteria of 'what does the law define'. So if politicians legislate wisely, courts will enforce any 'parliamentary' and/or executive order to ban the advertisements of medicine.
But they won't. Not until push-comes-to-shove, and the true bosses will reposition to 'the next thing' (smoking, sugary-foods, medicine) and then they will allow the politicians to finally block meds ads. In which case the 'next wave' will begin. Story as old as time...
Reading "Bottle of Lies" by Katherine Eban, I'd argue that the collapse of the FDA was well underway before the current administration. The FDA was completely unable to regulate overseas drug manufacturers, resulting in many, many problems. Sincere attempts to inspect overseas drug makers with random inspections universally results in shutdowns, which cause politically unpopular drug shortages, making enforcement politically difficult.
I’m very familiar with this space, specifically parenteral manufacturing.
The real challenge lies in the expectations the FDA has set for manufacturing. Over time, the regulatory space has been heavily influenced by academic-driven theoretical scenarios for microbiological contamination. While well-intentioned, these theoretical risks often drive overly stringent requirements that don’t always reflect real-world manufacturing risks.
As a result, it’s becoming prohibitively expensive to manufacture drugs for the U.S., especially sterile injectables.
It feels to me like the tyranny of small differences. The fact that the various watchdogs amplified such specific issues greatly overshadowed their support of the mission. From what I've read, the FDA is a backwater from a funding perspective, and yet a punching bag from a regulatory point-of-view.
*He and his colleagues had also been engaged in a decades-long debate with a sprawling community of watchdogs — mostly doctors, lawyers and scientists from outside the agency — who were often broadly supportive of the agency’s mission but who fought with officials like Califf, sometimes bitterly, over the specifics: How should the F.D.A. be financed? What kind of evidence should new drugs and medical devices require? How should regulators weigh the concerns of industry against the needs of doctors, patients and consumers?*
Chiron: 2004, the UK government shut down their flu vax plant (it was in the UK). It later came out that the FDA knew what was up and basically let it slide. It was one of the early ani-vax movements torches... Crunchy moms pissed about shots for kids and parents on Oxycodone were not happy with Pharma (or corporations in general: Enron etc..)
> politically unpopular drug shortages ...
Ask your ADHD friends about how they get their meds.
One side wants to keep it, the other side wants to get rid of it. No one wants to fix the problem.
“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma."
Anyone know what chelating compounds he is talking about?
He mentions clean foods, but the Trump EPA is protecting corporations from regulations more than its protecting citizens from pollution.
It's about EDTA. It can be legitimately used to treat heavy metal poisoning, plus some other things. Some people (who are probably misguided) want to self-medicate. The FDA won't let you. Hence, drama.
Probably, but the process doesn't work that way. The default is that you can't sell medication to people, period. Some pharmaceutical company applied to have a specific form of EDTA approved as a prescription drug, and that was that.
Separately from this, substances that meet the criteria of being "natural" can be sold as supplements as long as you don't claim they cure anything. EDTA is naturally-occurring and you can buy it as a supplement in the US, although the FDA has some beef with this, which I think is what the original remark might be alluding to.
EDTA is also a common food additive and a laboratory reagent, so people who want to use it can buy it easily, which makes the whole debate basically performance art.
So in summary, the FDA prevents you from marketing something as a medicine unless you have gone through the approval process and developed all the regulatory apparatus around a medicine (e.g. packaging, suppliers, prescription guidelines, etc)?
Yes. Look, I'm not arguing this is bad, I'm just trying to respond to the original question and capture the essence of the debate.
There are three pertinent points: (1) it's EDTA; (2) it's not that EDTA is safe or not safe, it's that no one applied to have it approved as an OTC medication; (3) you can still (probably) sell EDTA as a supplement in the US, but the FDA grumbled about it, which angered various chelation cranks.
"Heavy metal" in general is a bad term, but especially when used as a proxy for toxin. There is no universal definition of heavy metal and there is no inherent connection to toxicity in any specific organism.
Then again, pretty much every metal is toxic at some relatively low body-mass concentration, even iron (which actually can and does kill people, especially when children eat adult iron supplements).
Even lovely unreactive gold does have compounds that are toxic.
"We do our peers, countrymen, students, and children a grave disservice by admonishing them to think for themselves without also giving them the critical thinking tools to do so, for in so doing we foster a culture where "independent thought" is equated with "contrarian thought". This gives rise to an anti-intellectual, anti-science paradigm that supports an idea not because it meets a basic standard of evidence, but rather simply because it opposes established thought. This is worse than the intellectual calcification that stagnant "herd thinking" would give rise to, because it doesn't simply halt progress — it puts it in full retreat."
Unfortunately I feel like we are just seeing the snap of these government agencies. They have been bending for a while. It will feel like 6 months but we have been on the path for a while and not one administration has decided to bite the bullet and turn course.
I was just saying this today. I’m originally from the DC bubble. It’s been bad for a LONG time. Entire companies designed to fight and win government contracts so that they can milk the government until retirement. SAIC comes to mind.
These agencies haven’t been able to do their actual jobs in ages. Trump is doing what he said he was going to do (unpopular as that is) and we’ll have to figure out how to build back better (or whatever that term was).
I don’t agree with anything he’s doing but I do see opportunities in it. If we can survive without these departments until then.
While seeing opportunity in a crisis is a good coping mechanism, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to destroy first and rebuild from scratch. (It is however one of the core unjustified beliefs of free market fundamentalists.)
It actually seems to be true more generally, good coping mechanisms are not particularly efficient in the absence of crisis. Another example: People who lived through a dictatorship, which destroyed social trust and capital, learned to cope by distrusting state authorities. That's a coping mechanism that doesn't work well in the absence of dictate, a system that is open to democratic self-governance. You need people who are willing to apply more bold strategies to effectively run a democratic state.
Like I said, I don’t agree with his tactics. Burning the bridges isn’t smart.
I do think a lot of DC fat is coping mechanisms. The bureaucracy is so slow to respond to change, change that this community loves, and needs a redo. Reorg. Whatever.
I get why my opinion is so downvoted but the reality is the reality.
Don’t give the buffoon too much credit, as a lot of these weaknesses were engineered starting around Reagan (with Carter and Nixon also shouldering some, but far less overall, blame). Neoliberalism and its “invisible hand of the free market” alliance with Laissez-Faire Capitalism all but ensured the demise of institutions and social safety nets in the name of maximum profit for the moneyed classes. We built a Golden Age atop the New Deal, and Capital threw it all away to return to the 20s, violent strikebreaking and all.
I see this argument of "oh it's been happening for a long time" getting thrown around a lot, and it feels like a really non-good-faith point of view that seems to ignore the administration directly targeting these institutions for destruction.
Yes, poor management is a big problem that could be seen as an intentional structural issue, but this is a totally different ball game that's being played right now.
Before the wreckage this administration has created consumes us, that is. Like when our next round of influenza is especially bad but we've destroyed so much public health infrastructure that the US is the last to respond to the crisis, and the state authorities have to turn elsewhere for help -- to WHO or even to China -- to bail us out.
It’s easy to hand out money when you are not the one paying, and have no consequences for success or failure. Feeling justified and righteous is the icing on the cake
These types of oblique, semantically empty comments are so tiring. Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity rings true: "one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, that have taken possession of him."
What the actual fuck are you talking about "handing out money" as it pertains to this topic?
Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
Weird. I worked for and dealt with the government for extensive periods of time, namely cancer and basic biomedical research. We did fucking awesome things. Go hide in a lot cabin in the wilderness or something and leave the rest of us to our civilization. Don’t take us all down with you.
Anyone who has worked in drug development knows how vital FDA is.
The FDA costs taxpayers less than $4 billion per year.
If FDA is a net negative, next time you need a medication you're aware you can go participate in a Phase I study, and get paid to take a cutting edge drug for it? Why bother looking at the stuff on the medicine shelf that costs you money?
Can you give us all an idea of your experience working with government, and especially FDA?
Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed. Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. They can gatekeep government funds at best, limiting Medicaid / Medicare to those that want to pass their hoops
My experience is in selling tech to government. Disgusting and corrupt.
Insanity. Do you honestly believe the average person (probably a sick one at that) has the resources and time to fight a large pharmaceutical company in court? And do you really believe that during the time between releasing the drug and losing in court the faulty drug wouldn't make the company much more money than they'd have to pay as compensation? The amount of organization it would require to beat a large company with its resources would guarantee that most abuses would go unpunished and suffering would certainly increase compared to an environment with well functioning FDA.
The more-or-less unregulated drug industry that you envision is something that already exists: it's called "health supplements." And it's a disasters; there's been quite a few studies that show that many of the companies selling health supplements can't even be bothered to put in their claimed active ingredients.
This isn't some hypothetical "well, we haven't tried to see what it would look like without regulation;" this is something that is already in existence and whose effects can be measured today!
> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations
Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. It's how we deal with the vast majority of problems for a good reason.
If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. Would also take a lot of stress off our emergency medical care system which spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with addicts looking for drugs.
It's a funny example to use to justify the current regulatory framework because oxycontin got approved by the very same.
>> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations
> Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective.
This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place.
> If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do.
This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.
> Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed.
This is a comical extreme vision of libertarian politics. Everything gets worse, lots of people die, but it's okay because we have a small principle of freedom. Yeah. Great.
If you're trying to persuade people you're doing a very shit job.
The actual budget of the FDA is $4 billion. The overly restrictive regulations it puts on drug development and manufacture of generic medication costs 10-100x that.
> Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society.
I’ve spent my entire career working for wasteful companies who accomplish nothing and are net-negative for society. The government at least picks up my garbage every week.
> Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people.
An example of this is one beautiful bill which literally increased deficits while giving nothing of value to people but the biden-led inflation reduction act literally created new energy infrastructure without increasing deficit.
> This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people.
BBB is the most recent example of this. We cut spending across the board, shit on American, and in exchange we... raised the deficit by Trillions of dollars? What? How?
Letting people keep more of the money they earned through productive work is how we increase wealth. Taxes are literally a friction on the economy - we remove funds from productive entities every time they transact, retarding economic activity. The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken.
> The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken.
In republican governments, yes this is real.
In democrat governments, the vast majority of taxes goes into productive issues such as education, transportation, and healthcare. Even the type of bills passed by democrats are friendly towards building a society.
Now, YOU may not want to pay for other's education, transportation, and healthcare. But a lot of people appreciate that access to high quality is not merely limited to the wealthy. This is why you'll see amazing companies in blue states vs red, you'll see amazing companies starting during blue federal governments vs red.
The data is very clear on what produces great outcomes for society. You might not want others to get a decent life but you need to admit your selfishness.
https://archive.ph/0dddh
I wish someone would convince RFK that prescription drug ads are bad for his brand of quack medicine. We could at least get rid of that societal cancer while the rest is torn down.
It was a very strange experience once when I was in the US, at a hotel reception, suddenly hearing an advert for a sildenafil drug on TV behind the receptionist.
I’ve heard RFK say that it’s hard to ban TV ads for drugs. They are “speech” according to the 1st amendment, or something like that.
Too bad. News broadcasts are full of those ads, and hence TV journalists are loath to investigate the people that pay their salaries.
There's loads of precedent pointing to commercial speech such as marketing as having some specific carve outs on the right to free speech. After all we have limits on tobacco marketing and food labeling requirements.
The politicians are getting funded/paid (lobbying/donations) by the very same people/companies that pay the ad revenue to those media. Why on earth would politicians legislate against their actual bosses? (As a real life reminder - a dog that bites the hand that feed him is put down). Courts btw don't make up shit.. they 'judge' (verb) with the criteria of 'what does the law define'. So if politicians legislate wisely, courts will enforce any 'parliamentary' and/or executive order to ban the advertisements of medicine.
But they won't. Not until push-comes-to-shove, and the true bosses will reposition to 'the next thing' (smoking, sugary-foods, medicine) and then they will allow the politicians to finally block meds ads. In which case the 'next wave' will begin. Story as old as time...
They were illegal up until quasi recently… mid 90s IIRC. I believe it was right around the time of Viagra - probably not a coincidence.
Reading "Bottle of Lies" by Katherine Eban, I'd argue that the collapse of the FDA was well underway before the current administration. The FDA was completely unable to regulate overseas drug manufacturers, resulting in many, many problems. Sincere attempts to inspect overseas drug makers with random inspections universally results in shutdowns, which cause politically unpopular drug shortages, making enforcement politically difficult.
That seems more like an "underfunded and underjurisdictioned" problem for a portion of what they do, rather than collapse of the agency.
I’m very familiar with this space, specifically parenteral manufacturing.
The real challenge lies in the expectations the FDA has set for manufacturing. Over time, the regulatory space has been heavily influenced by academic-driven theoretical scenarios for microbiological contamination. While well-intentioned, these theoretical risks often drive overly stringent requirements that don’t always reflect real-world manufacturing risks.
As a result, it’s becoming prohibitively expensive to manufacture drugs for the U.S., especially sterile injectables.
And truly it gets worse every year…
It feels to me like the tyranny of small differences. The fact that the various watchdogs amplified such specific issues greatly overshadowed their support of the mission. From what I've read, the FDA is a backwater from a funding perspective, and yet a punching bag from a regulatory point-of-view.
Sooo that sounds like there's a whole lot of ways for it to get way, way, way worse.
The existence of problems does not imply there cannot be more plentiful, more diverse, and more severe problems in the near future.
If Chesterton's fence doesn't have a working latch, then it's appropriate to remove it entirely.
Or fix the latch? Or was this a sarcastic comment?
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
I know what Chesterton's fence is, my question was specifically about why one would throw it away if the latch doesn't work.
Chiron: 2004, the UK government shut down their flu vax plant (it was in the UK). It later came out that the FDA knew what was up and basically let it slide. It was one of the early ani-vax movements torches... Crunchy moms pissed about shots for kids and parents on Oxycodone were not happy with Pharma (or corporations in general: Enron etc..)
> politically unpopular drug shortages ...
Ask your ADHD friends about how they get their meds.
One side wants to keep it, the other side wants to get rid of it. No one wants to fix the problem.
> No one wants to fix the problem.
That’s not what wedge issues are for. They’re not meant to be solved, because then they’re used up, and there’s airtime to fill in the meantime.
“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma."
Anyone know what chelating compounds he is talking about?
He mentions clean foods, but the Trump EPA is protecting corporations from regulations more than its protecting citizens from pollution.
It's about EDTA. It can be legitimately used to treat heavy metal poisoning, plus some other things. Some people (who are probably misguided) want to self-medicate. The FDA won't let you. Hence, drama.
yeah, because unless you legitimately have heavy metal poisoning, the side effects DEFINITELY aren't worth it
Probably, but the process doesn't work that way. The default is that you can't sell medication to people, period. Some pharmaceutical company applied to have a specific form of EDTA approved as a prescription drug, and that was that.
Separately from this, substances that meet the criteria of being "natural" can be sold as supplements as long as you don't claim they cure anything. EDTA is naturally-occurring and you can buy it as a supplement in the US, although the FDA has some beef with this, which I think is what the original remark might be alluding to.
EDTA is also a common food additive and a laboratory reagent, so people who want to use it can buy it easily, which makes the whole debate basically performance art.
So in summary, the FDA prevents you from marketing something as a medicine unless you have gone through the approval process and developed all the regulatory apparatus around a medicine (e.g. packaging, suppliers, prescription guidelines, etc)?
Yes. Look, I'm not arguing this is bad, I'm just trying to respond to the original question and capture the essence of the debate.
There are three pertinent points: (1) it's EDTA; (2) it's not that EDTA is safe or not safe, it's that no one applied to have it approved as an OTC medication; (3) you can still (probably) sell EDTA as a supplement in the US, but the FDA grumbled about it, which angered various chelation cranks.
Iron, copper, zinc, cobalt, manganese and selenium are "heavy metals."
"Heavy metal" in general is a bad term, but especially when used as a proxy for toxin. There is no universal definition of heavy metal and there is no inherent connection to toxicity in any specific organism.
Then again, pretty much every metal is toxic at some relatively low body-mass concentration, even iron (which actually can and does kill people, especially when children eat adult iron supplements).
Even lovely unreactive gold does have compounds that are toxic.
"We do our peers, countrymen, students, and children a grave disservice by admonishing them to think for themselves without also giving them the critical thinking tools to do so, for in so doing we foster a culture where "independent thought" is equated with "contrarian thought". This gives rise to an anti-intellectual, anti-science paradigm that supports an idea not because it meets a basic standard of evidence, but rather simply because it opposes established thought. This is worse than the intellectual calcification that stagnant "herd thinking" would give rise to, because it doesn't simply halt progress — it puts it in full retreat."
Excellent statement, but who is the "great man" who once said this?
Important quote! Citation?
stevenAthompson from HN.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Unfortunately I feel like we are just seeing the snap of these government agencies. They have been bending for a while. It will feel like 6 months but we have been on the path for a while and not one administration has decided to bite the bullet and turn course.
I was just saying this today. I’m originally from the DC bubble. It’s been bad for a LONG time. Entire companies designed to fight and win government contracts so that they can milk the government until retirement. SAIC comes to mind.
These agencies haven’t been able to do their actual jobs in ages. Trump is doing what he said he was going to do (unpopular as that is) and we’ll have to figure out how to build back better (or whatever that term was).
I don’t agree with anything he’s doing but I do see opportunities in it. If we can survive without these departments until then.
While seeing opportunity in a crisis is a good coping mechanism, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to destroy first and rebuild from scratch. (It is however one of the core unjustified beliefs of free market fundamentalists.)
It actually seems to be true more generally, good coping mechanisms are not particularly efficient in the absence of crisis. Another example: People who lived through a dictatorship, which destroyed social trust and capital, learned to cope by distrusting state authorities. That's a coping mechanism that doesn't work well in the absence of dictate, a system that is open to democratic self-governance. You need people who are willing to apply more bold strategies to effectively run a democratic state.
Like I said, I don’t agree with his tactics. Burning the bridges isn’t smart.
I do think a lot of DC fat is coping mechanisms. The bureaucracy is so slow to respond to change, change that this community loves, and needs a redo. Reorg. Whatever.
I get why my opinion is so downvoted but the reality is the reality.
Sorry, this SAIC? https://www.saic.com/ Just curious which SAIC you are referring to.
Would you prefer Leidos?
That's how most oppressive regimes end. Sometimes faster.
What's oppressive about FDA? Be specific.
They obviously weren't referring "specifically" to the FDA at that point.
Don’t give the buffoon too much credit, as a lot of these weaknesses were engineered starting around Reagan (with Carter and Nixon also shouldering some, but far less overall, blame). Neoliberalism and its “invisible hand of the free market” alliance with Laissez-Faire Capitalism all but ensured the demise of institutions and social safety nets in the name of maximum profit for the moneyed classes. We built a Golden Age atop the New Deal, and Capital threw it all away to return to the 20s, violent strikebreaking and all.
I see this argument of "oh it's been happening for a long time" getting thrown around a lot, and it feels like a really non-good-faith point of view that seems to ignore the administration directly targeting these institutions for destruction.
Yes, poor management is a big problem that could be seen as an intentional structural issue, but this is a totally different ball game that's being played right now.
It is easy to complain and destroy. It is hard to build.
For a narcissistic hateful administration that wants easy votes, the destructive path is rational.
Before the wreckage this administration has created consumes us, that is. Like when our next round of influenza is especially bad but we've destroyed so much public health infrastructure that the US is the last to respond to the crisis, and the state authorities have to turn elsewhere for help -- to WHO or even to China -- to bail us out.
It’s easy to hand out money when you are not the one paying, and have no consequences for success or failure. Feeling justified and righteous is the icing on the cake
> you are not the one paying
We are, though.
> have no consequences for success or failure
Oh, the consequences for the failures of this administration will be felt by everyone, for decades.
These types of oblique, semantically empty comments are so tiring. Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity rings true: "one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, that have taken possession of him."
What the actual fuck are you talking about "handing out money" as it pertains to this topic?
Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
Weird. I worked for and dealt with the government for extensive periods of time, namely cancer and basic biomedical research. We did fucking awesome things. Go hide in a lot cabin in the wilderness or something and leave the rest of us to our civilization. Don’t take us all down with you.
Anyone who has worked in drug development knows how vital FDA is.
The FDA costs taxpayers less than $4 billion per year.
If FDA is a net negative, next time you need a medication you're aware you can go participate in a Phase I study, and get paid to take a cutting edge drug for it? Why bother looking at the stuff on the medicine shelf that costs you money?
Can you give us all an idea of your experience working with government, and especially FDA?
Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed. Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. They can gatekeep government funds at best, limiting Medicaid / Medicare to those that want to pass their hoops
My experience is in selling tech to government. Disgusting and corrupt.
Insanity. Do you honestly believe the average person (probably a sick one at that) has the resources and time to fight a large pharmaceutical company in court? And do you really believe that during the time between releasing the drug and losing in court the faulty drug wouldn't make the company much more money than they'd have to pay as compensation? The amount of organization it would require to beat a large company with its resources would guarantee that most abuses would go unpunished and suffering would certainly increase compared to an environment with well functioning FDA.
The more-or-less unregulated drug industry that you envision is something that already exists: it's called "health supplements." And it's a disasters; there's been quite a few studies that show that many of the companies selling health supplements can't even be bothered to put in their claimed active ingredients.
This isn't some hypothetical "well, we haven't tried to see what it would look like without regulation;" this is something that is already in existence and whose effects can be measured today!
> Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market.
This was the case pre-FDA. IIRC, that is how heroin was sold in drug stores. See also OxyContin[0].
> Allow people to sue if they are harmed.
So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations?
> Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs.
See previous reference to heroin once being an over-the-counter product.
0 - https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-...
> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations
Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. It's how we deal with the vast majority of problems for a good reason.
If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. Would also take a lot of stress off our emergency medical care system which spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with addicts looking for drugs.
It's a funny example to use to justify the current regulatory framework because oxycontin got approved by the very same.
>> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations
> Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective.
This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place.
> If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do.
This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.
> Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed.
This is a comical extreme vision of libertarian politics. Everything gets worse, lots of people die, but it's okay because we have a small principle of freedom. Yeah. Great.
If you're trying to persuade people you're doing a very shit job.
The actual budget of the FDA is $4 billion. The overly restrictive regulations it puts on drug development and manufacture of generic medication costs 10-100x that.
> Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society.
I’ve spent my entire career working for wasteful companies who accomplish nothing and are net-negative for society. The government at least picks up my garbage every week.
> Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people.
An example of this is one beautiful bill which literally increased deficits while giving nothing of value to people but the biden-led inflation reduction act literally created new energy infrastructure without increasing deficit.
> This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people.
A true believer, neat.
BBB is the most recent example of this. We cut spending across the board, shit on American, and in exchange we... raised the deficit by Trillions of dollars? What? How?
Republican fiscal policy.
Letting people keep more of the money they earned through productive work is how we increase wealth. Taxes are literally a friction on the economy - we remove funds from productive entities every time they transact, retarding economic activity. The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken.
> The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken.
In republican governments, yes this is real.
In democrat governments, the vast majority of taxes goes into productive issues such as education, transportation, and healthcare. Even the type of bills passed by democrats are friendly towards building a society.
Now, YOU may not want to pay for other's education, transportation, and healthcare. But a lot of people appreciate that access to high quality is not merely limited to the wealthy. This is why you'll see amazing companies in blue states vs red, you'll see amazing companies starting during blue federal governments vs red.
The data is very clear on what produces great outcomes for society. You might not want others to get a decent life but you need to admit your selfishness.
[flagged]
Can you speak directly to what you're referencing, please?
I am referencing the grotesque overregulation, and hence ridiculous costs and greatly reduced supply, of medical innovations such as new drugs.